BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

105 results for “section 68”+ Section 80Pclear

Sorted by relevance

Pune139Cochin138Bangalore138Mumbai105Panaji78Delhi62Chennai43Visakhapatnam33Kolkata33Ahmedabad31Hyderabad29Jaipur28Rajkot20Chandigarh13Nagpur11Surat10Karnataka9Lucknow7Jodhpur4Kerala4Amritsar3Jabalpur3Indore3Raipur2Cuttack2Agra1SC1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 80P(2)(d)151Section 80P105Deduction81Section 80P(2)(a)69Addition to Income65Section 8064Section 143(1)57Section 6852Section 143(3)51Disallowance

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the\nappeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1726/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

section 80P\nwithout appreciating the facts of the case and hence, pray that impugned\ndisallowance is bad in law and ought to be deleted.\nThe appellants crave leave to add to, alter or amend the aforestated grounds of\nappeal.\n4. While the Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal for the\n assessment year

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

Showing 1–20 of 105 · Page 1 of 6

51
Section 25034
Cash Deposit17
ITA 1725/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

section 80P\nwithout appreciating the facts of the case and hence, pray that impugned\ndisallowance is bad in law and ought to be deleted.\n\nThe appellants crave leave to add to, alter or amend the aforestated grounds of\nappeal.\"\n\n4. While the Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal for the\n assessment year

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

ITA 2078/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

section 80P\nwithout appreciating the facts of the case and hence, pray that impugned\ndisallowance is bad in law and ought to be deleted.\nThe appellants crave leave to add to, alter or amend the aforestated grounds of\nappeal.\n4. While the Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal for the\n assessment year

SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1727/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

section 80P\nwithout appreciating the facts of the case and hence, pray that impugned\ndisallowance is bad in law and ought to be deleted.\nThe appellants crave leave to add to, alter or amend the aforestated grounds of\nappeal.\"\n4. While the Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal for the\n assessment year

JEEVAN VIKAS NAGRI SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT ,PALGHAR vs. ITO, CIR-4 , THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 are allowed

ITA 918/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Surendra Jain, Sr. DR
Section 69ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

section 80P(2)(d). Accordingly the AO reallocated the expenses based on the income percentage and accordingly recomputed the income from business at Rs.3,26,68

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4.1 , THANE, THANE vs. JEEVAN VIKAS NAGRI SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT, MARYADT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 are allowed

ITA 2241/MUM/2024[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2024

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Surendra Jain, Sr. DR
Section 69ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

section 80P(2)(d). Accordingly the AO reallocated the expenses based on the income percentage and accordingly recomputed the income from business at Rs.3,26,68

EKTA SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT,VIRAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASSESSMENT UNIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed

ITA 105/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: \nShri Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: \nShri Manish Ajudiya (Sr. DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Section 80P(2)(a)(i) amounting to Rs.1,68,52,014/- thereby wrongly treating the Appellant a Cooperative Bank

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), THANE, THANE vs. JEEVAN VIKAS NAGRI SAHAKARI PATPEDI MARYADIT, VASAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 are\nallowed

ITA 1961/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2024AY 2018-19
Section 69ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

section 80P(2)(d).\nAccordingly the AO reallocated the expenses based on the income percentage and\naccordingly recomputed the income from business at Rs.3,26,68

EKTA SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT,VIRAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASSESSMENT UNIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed

ITA 106/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manish Ajudiya (Sr. DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

68,52,014/- thereby wrongly treating the Appellant a Cooperative Bank instead of Cooperative Society and overlooking the fact that the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) was allowed in the previous years including AY 2017-18.\n2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. erred in denying deduction u/s 80P

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

ITA 2077/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

section 80P without appreciating the facts of the case and hence, pray that impugned disallowance is bad in law and ought to be deleted. The appellants crave leave to add to, alter or amend the aforestated grounds of appeal.‖ 4. While the Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal for the assessment year

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

ITA 2076/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

section 80P without appreciating the facts of the case and hence, pray that impugned disallowance is bad in law and ought to be deleted. The appellants crave leave to add to, alter or amend the aforestated grounds of appeal.‖ 4. While the Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal for the assessment year

BLUE ROSE INDUSTRIAL PREMISES CO-OP SOCIETY LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 42(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal ITA NO

ITA 2329/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

68,455/- M/s. Mumbai District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd Rs.7,18,345/- M/s. Saraswat Cooperative Bank Ltd Rs. 7,60,308/- Total Rs. 38,47,108/- Less: Interest on Savings/ Non-Cooperative Banks Rs. 1,01,407/- Deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) Rs. 37,45,701/- Learned AO, after making adjustment of an interest on savings

BLUE ROSE INDUSTRIAL PREMISES CO-OP SOCIETY LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 42(1)(1),, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal ITA NO

ITA 2330/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

68,455/- M/s. Mumbai District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd Rs.7,18,345/- M/s. Saraswat Cooperative Bank Ltd Rs. 7,60,308/- Total Rs. 38,47,108/- Less: Interest on Savings/ Non-Cooperative Banks Rs. 1,01,407/- Deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) Rs. 37,45,701/- Learned AO, after making adjustment of an interest on savings

SUKHSAGAR CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 32(1)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly exclude the same net of the proportional expenditure attributable to the earning of interest income.\n14. Thus, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in the same terms

ITA 4335/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21
Section 147Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(d)

section 80P(2)(d) of the Act to the Assessee in respect of interest income earned from investment with Cooperative Banks. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) for the assessment year 2018-19. As a result, grounds raised by the Assessee are allowed.\n7. As the assessee has admittedly earned part

SUKHSAGAR CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 32(1)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly exclude the same net of the proportional expenditure attributable to the earning of interest income.\n14. Thus, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in the same terms

ITA 4336/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
Section 147Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(d)

section 80P(2)(d) of the Act to the Assessee in respect of interest income earned from investment with Cooperative Banks. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) for the assessment year 2018-19. As a result, grounds raised by the Assessee are allowed.\n7. As the assessee has admittedly earned part

ITO-19(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. THE JACKSON COOP CREDIT SOCIETY OF THE EMPLOYEES OF WESTERN RAILWAY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2976/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
Section 142(1)Section 250Section 56Section 62Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

68,024/- made by the\nAO, u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, being claimed by the appellant as a interest\nincome yielded from co-operative banks, without appreciating co-operative\nbanks the facts that are function at par with the other commercial banks,\nwhich do not enjoy any tax benefit. Therefore, section

SADHANA SAHAKARI PATPEDHI LIMITED,PALGHAR vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

ITA 55/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Unmesh J NarvekarFor Respondent: ShriDr. Kishore Dhule - CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(C)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

68,31,658/- being interest received from co-operative banks on which deduction under Section 80P is clamed should

NAND BHUVAN IND PRIMISES CO-OP SOC LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-24(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 6010/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Bhuta, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2(19)Section 250Section 70Section 80PSection 80P(1)Section 80P(2)(d)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2017-18. 2 M/s. Nand Bhuvan IND Premises Co Op Soc Ltd. 2. In the instant case, the Assessee by filing its return of income on dated 17.10.2017 and declaring total income of Rs.1,68,010/- , has also claimed the deduction of Rs.16

RESERVE BANK STAFF AND OFFICERS CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 26 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3118/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Mr. Siddesh Mayekar, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

68,31,658/- being interest received from co-operative banks on which deduction under Section 80P is clamed should

RESERVE BANK STAFF AND OFFICERS CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 26 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3117/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Mr. Siddesh Mayekar, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

68,31,658/- being interest received from co-operative banks on which deduction under Section 80P is clamed should